Encouraging gun ownership is unique, if someone doesn't follow the ordinance, the penalty is zero! Objectors are specifically excluded - nobody is forced to have a gun. You still need to meet all local requirements for a firearms license and gun safety training. The ACLU challenged UGO in Federal Court, and it was found to be entirely legal, see the ordinance text here.

It was first implemented by the City of Kennesaw many years ago. It caused a direct and substantial reduction in their crime rate - violent crime went down by 79% and property crime by a third. Despite all the mendacious negative publicity , these improvements have continued for over thirty years. The City of Nelson is now enjoying equally impressive crime reductions.

If you're at all skeptical - objections

Click to see why none of the common objections hold any water. (if the text is hidden there, please click on the heading):

Objections to encouraging gun ownership

Encouraging gun ownership worked really well for Kennesaw, but does it work for everyone?

A very good question, with a very clear (and easy to research) answer: It depends! Find your violent crime rate here . How many violent career criminals live in your community?

Kennesaw's violent crime rate is just a third of US National Average, which suggests they have no violent career criminals, although they do have crimes of passion.

Is your community's violent crime rate much lower than National? If not, you probably have at least one if not several violent criminals who are committing your violent crimes.

Kennesaw has so little violent crime today because, thirty years ago, they encouraged their responsible citizens to be armed which convinced their predatory criminals they'd get injured if they attacked their people. It continues to work its magic for their city today.

Although politicians sometimes have guns yet say they don't believe in protective guns, people believe and vote for them. It's sad that so many people can be manipulated into jeopardizing the safety of their loved ones by believing disingenuous political rhetoric. But who nurtures the fiction that law-abiding guns cause crime?

"If you're anti-gun ... you either did not read the book with an open mind, or you do not know how to distinguish a precisely-reasoned argument from a merely political one."

Translation: Either you have been programmed to ignore well-proven facts, or you've been taught what to thinkrather than how to think - a very real problem nowadays. A government education seems to neglect teaching people how to think, it instead focuses on teaching what to think instead.

They don't see the manipulation by politicians, some of whom own guns or have armed guards for protection! Such people believe you should be made to do what they say, yet they themselves are above petty restrictions. You must: Do as I say, not as I do. Pure hypocrisy.

We don't pass ordinances or laws. "While the Sheriff does have the constitutional authority to protect and serve all citizens in our County, we defer to each city's police to enforce the law."

Yes, but encouraging gun ownership is not about enforcing the law, it persuades criminals not to break the law by changing their motivation. Since violent criminals fear being injured, they decide not to attack once they know all their victims can protect themselves.

Encouraging gun ownership provides such amazing reductions in crime that your crime fighting professionals should help enact this strategy benefitting everyone in your community. Does it protect and serve your citizens if they ignore UGO? No, the evidence unequivocally proves there's no better way to protect and serve your voters. Only criminals and criminal kingpins lose.

Some say that violent criminals preying on peaceable citizens are just animals. Since it seems that both cities and counties can pass ordinances such as animal control, is there any reason not to pass this animal control ordinance to protect citizens against all violent animals - including those with two legs.

That's why publicity for the ordinance is so important. You want it widely known that all your citizens can resist assault. Gun-grabbers will publicize guns ownership as dangerous, and they are indeed for criminals, but guns are not dangerous for responsible citizens.

Publicity tells your violent criminals that violent crime is unsafe for them in your city, yet it actually doesn't matter if this is portrayed as positive or not. It lets people and businesses know that yours is a really safe environment. People like feeling safe...

The gun-grabbers will generate all sorts of negative publicity - which is actually desirable, you want publicity for your strategy. It tells your predatory criminals that they'll get shot if they attack your people while people as well as businesses learn that your city is a very safe place. People find safe environments attractive ...

Do you worry about your kid swimming with a friend? What’s riskier: a gun or a swimming pool? If you let little Johnny go to Bobby’s house to swim, he's 10 times more likely to have a fatal accident swimming versus going to little Timmy’s where dad has a gun. [link now bad: smartparentshealthykids.com/blog/?p=11]

A few police - and even a few sheriffs - see an ordinance encouraging gun ownership as unnecessary. They believe there are too many laws on the books anyway and one more law simply exacerbates the problem. But any crime rate not a lot lower than the US National Average shows how much their citizens would enjoy much less crime.

The crucial difference they're missing is the motivation widespread gun ownership gives to hardened violent criminals . When more or less everyone is armed, the knowledge that they could get killed or injured drives them out of town. They go where their victims are less able to fight back...

It's said that there's no such thing as bad publicity. Your ordinance tells everybody you're making your city safer - except for violent criminals and those who profit from crime.

Your city actually wants publicity to tell your violent criminals they'll get shot if they assault or rape any of your citizens. So once you've received enough, then implement the Brady settlement agreementand there'll be nothing more to complain about. You want businesses, people and visitors to know that your city is becoming much, much safer...

Yes, the City of Nelson had enormous amounts of negative publicity about their UGO ordinance. But some if not much of it comes from criminals who don't like their victims being armed.

Unfortunately, they both neglected to remove the penalty for non-compliance and failed to educate their people about the immense value of defensive guns. Such problems are simple to overcome: enact the settlement clause and provide the focussed information needed to educate your citizens. Such implementation pitfalls are easy to avoid...

Because criminals prefer unarmed victims and stop violent attacks once they know everyone is armed, this is just not so. Indisputable evidence has proved that even more guns cause even less crime. UGO ensures EVERYONE is armed - rather than just most people - and the publicity persuades your violent criminals to leave town. Violent criminals also commit property crime...

If your violent crime rate is NOT much lower than the National Average, you have violent criminals attacking your people. Crime rates all across the USA prove that more guns carried by your citizens deter criminals more. How does your crime rate compare to Kennesaw's?

Why argue with the facts? Unless your violent crime rate is a third of the National Average and you have half the property crime like Kennesaw, you can do lots more to deter your criminals. Encouraging ALL their potential victims to be armed is the strongest deterrent there is. Encouraging gun ownership will reduce your violent crime as well as your property crime.

How can you lose when the publicity tells the whole world that your community is a outstandingly safe place to live and work? Both people and companies look for low crime when moving... UGO will improve your economic growth!

But would your citizens benefit more if you were willing to investigate new strategies proven to dramatically reduce crime rather than focus on where you heard about those strategies? There are large benefits to be made by looking at the message rather than the messenger.

Our time and expertise are free, we have nothing to sell you. So why do we do this?

Like the college professor who reviewed More Guns, Less Crime, we know that many who oppose your right to defend yourself with a gun simply believe their politicians and haven't yet investigated the evidence. Mind you, some haven't been taught the enormous difference between a well-reasoned argument and a political one...

We create Special Reports such as The Right Response, How to Reduce Violent Crime which are specially designed - and can be individually customized - to convince your skeptical voters that encouraging gun ownership will drastically reduce violent crime. And property crime. And forcible rape...

Yes, there are lots of different sorts of crime and it's a difficult ongoing task to balance all the claims on your time along with your responsibilities. Yet your sheriff is elected to protect and serve your citizens, which includes reducing violent crime and that's also the police chief's job.

If you were to ask your citizens how high should reducing violent crime be on your city's priority list, what would they tell you? Would many if not most of them say it's a very high priority?

So put discouraging criminals on your schedule to investigate, and let us know when you'd like to start enjoying the major reductions in violent crime it brings...

Although objectors are specifically excluded, some object to encouraging gun ownership thinking it's coercive. But there's no penalty and anyone who objects is exempt! And you still need to meet all local requirements such as gun safety training. So encouragement is neither Mandatory Gun Ownership nor Compulsory Gun Ownership, it's simply your choice.

Don't you need the freedom to make your own decision about your own defense? Isn't freedom important, should you be forced to follow anyone else's idea about what is right for them? You only become armed if you so choose.

The default changes for any unarmed people holding the middle ground. If they don't feel strongly about being armed, responsible citizens don't have a gun without UGO. Whereas all law-abiding citizens who have absolutely no objection get a gun with UGO - including those who couldn't be bothered previously.

You still have your local requirements for a Concealed Handgun License and gun safety training. With the outcry exacerbated by all the criminals, the enormous FREE publicity turbocharges your economic development by getting rid of your violent predators...

The FBI total each city's crime numbers from their monthly SLED submissions, and then validate those numbers before publishing each one's total crime later the following year. CityRating then analyze the FBI numbers...

The City of Kennesaw continue to have a tiny violent crime rate thirty years after encouraging gun ownership - just a third of the National Average. Their property crime rate is two-thirds, considerably lower than the rest of Georgia.

Counting Kennesaw's population as just 30,000 people ignores the 25,000 students in the university for much of the year. If these were included, the number of officers per 1,000 citizens would be a lot lower and so the savings on fewer officers - estimated at over a million dollars a year - would be a lot higher.

There are savings in court costs. The fewer crimes committed, the fewer people to arrest and charge with crime in court which also gives manpower savings. Savings all round which have not been estimated.

Jail savings. Each inmate in jail costs money every day, and fewer crimes means fewer people receiving jail sentences - inmates cost around $36,286 per year . Then there are capital savings on new jails not needed for expanding numbers of inmates. Neither running cost nor capital cost savings have been estimated.

Justice is swifter and more accurate. Since the courts have less crimes to try, the backlog decreases. The shorter time between the crime and its court hearing is also beneficial, memories are more accurate. As the saying goes: Justice delayed is justice denied.

Just as more armed police patrols discourage crime, more armed responsible citizens discourage violent criminals. Convince a violent criminal he can be shot by his prey - and he won't attack.. There's unequivocal proof that more guns cause less crime - and even more guns cause even less crime. There's lot of evidence, see more here, here, and here. all .

Yet despite the significant dollar and manpower savings arising from a serious decrease in crime, one police lieutenant delegated to investigate encouraging gun ownership was, er, unenthusiastic. "We just follow the law" he said. Unlike those elected by their voters, it seems that employees can have little or no incentive to be interested in their well-being, no matter how legitimate.

Conclusion

Encouraging gun ownership is a proven crime-reducing strategy which benefits not only you, your police and your citizens. It deters nearby criminals in your state. It reduces the costs of fighting crime and saves substantial amounts of money. Your voters both want and like the results. What's not to like? ...

"Criminals are lazy by nature, they go to where it's less resistance, criminal activity is easier." – Police Chief Jimmy Carter, City of Brunswick, Georgia

Average deaths in a shooting rampage when stopped by police: 14.3. But average deaths when stopped by civilians: far less - just 2.3.

So discourage violent criminals and terrorists from attacking your people. Encourage your qualified, law-abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves, their family and their property. Both concealed carry as well as the discretionary ordinance are entirely optional - there's no penalty and they're exempt from complying if they object for any reason at all!

Despite media misunderstanding and much misrepresentation, Universal Gun Ownership is not coercive, it's neither Mandatory Gun Ownership nor Compulsory Gun Ownership. It's simply a choice to be prepared to defend themselves and their loved ones from a violent criminal in advance...